JAs, list I don’t think it’s the time to move into ad hominem. My comment about ‘ignorance and uneducted’ was sarcastic - and I’m sure you know that. And I certainly don’t assume that everyone in academia knows the function of ’square brackets’ [ I use them all the time because they are easier to use on the keyboard]. But- even so - one should explain wHY one added a term in ’squad brackets’. That’s the real issue.
I don’t agree that using different terms from Peirce tends to ’signify different concepts from Peirce’s own’. That would assume that a concept can only be expressed in ONE term and that term alone.I don’t think this is a valid conclusion. As Peirce himself said ‘How the conceptions are named makes, however, little difference [ 4.4]. After all - Peirce’s semiosis IS about information processing! What do you think is going on when a dog smells a scent, and interprets it - other than ‘information processing? As for ’node - I consider it a valid interpretation of the correlates; a ’node’ is a site for a network connection; it is a connection site in a communication network.- and in my view, that is exactly what is going on within the various correlates/elations. Peirce himself refers to the sign as other the full triad or the mediating relation. And he certainly refers to the ‘mediating relation’ as just that. ..and NOT just ’the first correlate’. [ Read Robert Marty’s 76 definitions of the Sign]. As for the Dynamic and Immediate Objects - these are both operative within the semiotic process. I am referring to the Real Object [ and I provided quotations from peirce] both in his comments about the weather and elsewhere, as to the reality of this ’Third object’ = which is outside of ones own semiotic interaction..but.. ‘real objects exist in the world.. I disagree with your view of the Peirean universe. I do see an inconsistency with the universe as only the mediate sign/representamen [ but can certainly see it as, Peirce concluded in that section, as an Argument, which is triadic, and operative as multiple triadic signs. . My concern is that, with your view that the Universe as a Sign, has its Dynamic Object external to it - you have set up the Universe as spatially finite, with boundaries. I see no mention of a bounded universe in Peirce. And, that would also mean that the Dynamic Interpretant would also be ‘outside of theUniverse. Again - is there any reference to this in Peirce? Edwina > On Sep 8, 2024, at 8:59 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > > List: > > It seems disrespectful, even insulting, to suggest that some readers of our > posts are "ignorant and uneducated." Anyone familiar with published > collections of Peirce's writings (CP, NEM, EP, etc.) and/or the abundant > secondary literature is well aware of the standard practice of enclosing in > square brackets any words that are added within a quotation, thereby > signaling that they are not in the original text. > > My chief concern about using different terms from Peirce's own is that they > tend to signify different concepts from Peirce's own. For example, his > semeiotic is not itself about "information processing," although it offers > some helpful insights into that phenomenon (among many others). As I have > said before, the sign, the object, and the interpretant are not "nodes," they > are correlates; and the sign itself is not a "triad" or "mediate relation," > it is the first correlate of the genuine triadic relation of representing or > mediating (CP 2:242, EP 2:290, 1903). Again, in CP 8.314, the "Object, as > expressed" is the immediate object, which is internal to that particular > sign; and whenever Peirce refers to "the real object," it is the dynamical > object, which is external to every sign that it determines. He never states > nor implies, here or elsewhere, that there is a third object. > > I repeat once more, everyone reading along has seen for themselves what > Peirce said in his own words about this, and none of it is even remotely > controversial within the community of scholars who have already been studying > and discussing his speculative grammar for more than a century. I am not the > participant in this exchange who is advocating novel and idiosyncratic > "readings" of the relevant passages. > > On the other hand, there seems to be agreement that nothing within our > existing universe is ultimately "outside of the semiosic process." > Nevertheless, each individual sign that we prescind from that continuum has > its individual dynamical object that is external to that sign, independent of > that sign, and unaffected by that sign. Likewise, the entire universe as one > immense sign must have an overall dynamical object that is external to it, > independent of it, and unaffected by it. There is no inconsistency whatsoever > in understanding the universe to be both one sign and many signs, both "a > vast representamen" (CP 5.119, EP 2:193, 1903) and "perfused with signs, if > it is not composed exclusively of signs" (CP 5.448n, EP 2:394, 1906); see my > statements 4.1-3, their supporting Peirce quotations (including these two), > and footnotes 19-20 in my "Semiosic Synechism" paper > <https://philpapers.org/archive/SCHSSA-42.pdf>. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> > On Sat, Sep 7, 2024 at 9:48 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> List, JAS >> >> 1] Not everyone knows ’standard practice’ ; therefore, I consider it >> courteous to let the ignorant and uneducated reader of your post know that >> it is YOU who have inserted the word… and even, to further explain WHY. Why >> would you add such a word [‘merely] without explaining your intention? >> >> 2] So what if Peirce doesn’t use the words of ‘information sites where >> information is processed’. Is it heretical to explain his concepts using >> different terms?? Are you suggesting that this action of information >> processing doesn’t happen? >> >> What do you think analysis actually does? Just quote texts without >> examination of their meaning? What’s the point of that? The function of >> analysis is to understand the texts - and usually, this means explaining >> them in other ways..- multiple ways - using different terms and examples - >> and in different disciplines. Just robotically repeating the terms is not an >> analysis. >> >> 23 I have outlined Peirce’s analytic process - where as he pointed out in >> his reference to the semiotic process in his determining the weather [8.314] >> - he does indeed refer to ’the Object as expressed, is the weather at that >> time’ - and is quite different from the Dynamic Object. He also frequently >> refers to the Real Object - which is outside of the semiotic process. So- >> despite your claim - Peirce himself does often refer to an object outside of >> the semiosic process. >> >> 3] WITHIN the semiosic process, in its basic format, it is an irreducible >> triad of Object-Representamen/Sign- Interpretant…and in its more detailed >> format: …the full semiosic process is: Dynamic Object- ImmediateObject - >> Representamen/Sign - Immediate Interpretant- Dynamic Interpretant-Final >> Interpretant. >> >> I note again that the Real Object is outside of the semiosic process - but - >> it exists. >> >> 4]The above irreducible format of Object-Representamen/Sign-Interpretant is >> a key reason why I also reject your claim that the Dynamic Object is outside >> of the ’sign’. You stated that “every [dynamical] object stands outside of >> every sign that it determines . Therefore, if the entire universe is one >> immense sign, then its ‘[dynamical] object must nevertheless be external to >> it, independent of it, and unaffected by it”. >> >> I disagree with the above - because NONE of the three correlates of the >> semiotic triad and NONE of the six correlates of the semiosic process stand >> alone and independently . There is no such thing as a singular >> sign/representamen on its own. No such thing as a Dynamic Object on its own >> - independent of the other correlates. Peirce's outline of the semiosic >> process is that the Sign is a TRIAD; and is irreducible. [See for example, >> 1.480..where “representation necessarily involves a genuine triad. For it >> involves a sign, or representamen, of some kind, outward or inward mediating >> between an object and an interpreting thought” . And all Peirce’s >> definitions off the sign refer to its triadic nature..eg, “A representamen, >> or sign is anything [ not necessarily real] which stands at once in a >> relation of correspondence to a second third, its object and to another >> possible representamen, its interpretant….” 1901. R 1147. . >> >> Are you really saying that the Universe is ONLY the mediate relation [S/R] >> in the triad? Is ONLY the middle term of the triad of O-S-I?? And that the >> Dynamic Object, which Peirce himself defines as “the reality which by some >> means contrives to determine the Sign to its Representation” 4.536…”the >> dynamical object does not mean something out of the mind. It means something >> forced upon the mind in perception" SS 197. That is - the Dynamic Object is >> already taking part in the semiotic triadic process of determining meaning. >> Therefore - it is not, in my understanding, “standing outside of every sign >> that it determines’. The Dynamic Object, in my understanding, functions only >> within the semiosic process. >> >> And the same with the mediative term, the Representamen/Sign- it functions >> only within a triadic process. I simply cannot understand a universe >> understood as ONLY the singular mediative term…without the correlates of the >> Object and Interpretant - and don’t see how or why you break up the triad >> into independent parts.. >> >> Edwina > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at > https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at > https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the > links! > ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] > . > ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] > with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in > the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . > ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and > co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
